So, where then are your grounds, your base, to claim that Joel's name has biblical origins?

You see what I mean? It just doesn't make sense.

Just to counter argue. Where's yours saying that it didn't? :p Both of our arguments are in the same place and both could or could not be correct. Since in fact what we both know about Joel is fairly the same.

Quote:

Not here, that'd be frowned on.

Are you kidding? That'd be thread derailment and I don't think I could purposefully do that to Ice.

Just to counter argue. Where's yours saying that it didn't? :p Both of our arguments are in the same place and both could or could not be correct. Since in fact what we both know about Joel is fairly the same.

This just became dangerously close to crossing over into a religious discussion...

Against my better judgment, I'm gonna say that that argument right there is almost an exact copy/pasta of a Theism vs Atheism debate where the theist says, "Where's your proof that atheism is right?" Fact of the matter is this: you're the one making a positive claim, or assumption in this case, but we'll roll with it. That assumption being that Joel's name (in Housepets) has some sort of religious affiliation linked to it.

As the argument goes: I'm not claiming that my view is right, that there's likely no religious affiliation linked with Joel's name, only that you don't have the means to say there is any religious origin involved.

Just to clarify my earlier points, and bring up what someone said elsewhere: Up until now, in the time that we've seen him, King's life has been largely out of his control, ushered around by one cosmic force or another, or else he has not wanted to act on anything. With his fate literally, LITERALLY in his own hands now, this represents a MAJOR shift in the story, in my opinion. If he does nothing by the time someone arrives to retrieve it, it would represent him still being towed along, and accomplishing nothing, and that would be a shame. While he has his fate, could it be an opportunity for him to finally DO something himself significantly?

A good point. However, one must note that all that's happened to him thus far was accomplished without access to his "fate", so him having it teeeechnically shouldn't change anything... as for aesthetics, however, it could very well represent a powerful symbolism of the nature you describe. Symbolically, him finally holding his "fate" in his hands could indicate that the next time we see him pop up in the comic, that he'll be ready to finally take control of his life and figure out what he wants to do with it.

I think we've all been speculating on his character's motives ever since he was turned into a dog and joined the main cast. Now (or whenever his next plot-furthering arc comes around) may be the time we finally get to see that revealed.

A good point. However, one must note that all that's happened to him thus far was accomplished without access to his "fate", so him having it teeeechnically shouldn't change anything...

Huh? What do you mean? If it doesn't really change anything, what's the point in having an entire arc around it? Also, keep in mind, his fate was stored in a secure location (something that, if it's a piece of his soul, is somewhat troubling. Why are souls NOT in their bodies?), and could be accessed. It was out of his hands.

No no no, I mean that all the things that were happening to him (being turned into a dog, for example) happened to him before anyone tried to touch his "fate", which was at the time locked (mostly) safely away in dog heaven.

So, nothing's really changed besides that it's now in his hands, rather than sitting up in dog heaven. It's still in the same unaltered state as it was in heaven.

Well, on that note, plenty of things could have happened to it in heaven as well. Especially if Cerberus hadn't managed to break Pete's wings right away, and he had been able to fly off with it.

I will concede that it's certainly more open to alteration now than it was before. Namely because King is now free to mess with it himself if he so chooses; until the "being from heaven" comes to pick it up, of course. So it's got more potential to be changed, but potential isn't the same as actual change, which was the main point I was trying to get across.

I will concede that it's certainly more open to alteration now than it was before. Namely because King is now free to mess with it himself if he so chooses; until the "being from heaven" comes to pick it up, of course. So it's got more potential to be changed, but potential isn't the same as actual change, which was the main point I was trying to get across.

Does King know it has that power? Then the next question is, how do you use the power??

if someone gave me my fate watch, i wouldn't have any idea on how to use the power.

Ah, I see, okay. By that argument, let's hope he has the power TO change it BEFORE that messenger arrives to retrieve it.

Indeed. Although I'm not entirely sure we know what his "fate" is at this point. We've got an idea that it probably isn't too good for his human self if he tries to change back, but I don't think it's been mentioned whether his "fate" while remaining a dog is any better or worse. *scratches head*

Regardless, I do feel it's in his best interest to make some sort of change.

Keeshah wrote:

Does King know it has that power?Then the next question is, how do you use the power??

if someone gave me my fate watch, i wouldn't have any idea on how to use the power.

I think I actually meant to bring that up, but it slipped my mind... thanks for pointing that out. :]

I'm also quite curious as to how he'll figure out (assuming he does figure it out) just how to use the stone to make changes to his "fate". Otherwise, it somewhat defeats the purpose of him having it in the first place. Not to mention it diminishes the significance of all the trouble he went through to get it back from Bino.

I'm also quite curious as to how he'll figure out (assuming he does figure it out) just how to use the stone to make changes to his "fate". Otherwise, it somewhat defeats the purpose of him having it in the first place. Not to mention it diminishes the significance of all the trouble he went through to get it back from Bino.

If the watch stops you die! is the great motivating factor of keeping it in your control.

Ahhh, actually that's never stated anywhere in the comic, I don't believe (feel free to show me where it does, because I may very well be wrong about that). I feel like we're just assuming that because of the obsession most of the characters seem to have with All Dogs Go to Heaven (and Don Bluth movies, in general) and the fact this watch seems to be another take right out of the movie. I'm still not totally convinced though; I'm half expecting Rick to find a place in the next King arc where the watch is about to be destroyed, he makes it seem like King is dying or dies, and then they realize that the watch isn't actually connected to him in that way. After all, it's a part of his soul, not the whole thing.

What's more, this is his "fate" watch we're talking about, not his "life" watch. If his "fate" is destroyed...? Seems to me more likely that his future will simply become unknowable, and King will be forced to make a decision in order to create a new path for himself. And I'd be perfectly okay with that if that's how Rick wanted the story to go.

Edit: Also, I more meant that it'd defeat the purpose of it falling to earth and him having to go through all he did to get it back from Bino, rather than just leaving it heaven (or out of the story entirely). The mere fact that Rick had it fall down to earth for King to fight tooth-and-nail to get back suggests that he wants King to actually do something with it. Not just give it back to heaven and have it never show up again. That would defeat the purpose of introducing it as a plot point.

Edit: Also, I more meant that it'd defeat the purpose of it falling to earth and him having to go through all he did to get it back from Bino, rather than just leaving it heaven (or out of the story entirely). The mere fact that Rick had it fall down to earth for King to fight tooth-and-nail to get back suggests that he wants King to actually do something with it. Not just give it back to heaven and have it never show up again. That would defeat the purpose of introducing it as a plot point.

While that might be possible I doubt it, because I think The Watch is nothing more then a MacGuffin. I don't think it will have anything to do with future King arcs other then maybe a mention or two. Also Sabrina said that some one would be around to pick it up in a few days and unless they take a long time or the next King arc is really soon after Not All Dogs it will be gone by then.

_________________

Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:13 pm

PhoenixAsper

Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:38 amPosts: 579

Re: What would you do if you were in Kings position?

If it's a MacGuffin, then I am disappointed. Again, the watch being taken back away from him represents him being towed around, as he has ALWAYS been.

While that might be possible I doubt it, because I think The Watch is nothing more then a MacGuffin. I don't think it will have anything to do with future King arcs other then maybe a mention or two. Also Sabrina said that some one would be around to pick it up in a few days and unless they take a long time or the next King arc is really soon after Not All Dogs it will be gone by then.

Well, to be honest, if he doesn't do anything with it, then it won't have served a purpose at all. As it is now, if it's returned to heaven off-screen and never spoken of again, Rick will have essentially spent an entire arc on King chasing a meaningless item that served no purpose beyond giving King and his plot some screen time; not actually furthering the plot at all.

So, unless Rick just got lazy and didn't plan this part of the story out at all, the watch will be making a reappearance. I'm fairly confident in that (mostly because I'm confident in Rick's storytelling ability).

Well, to be honest, if he doesn't do anything with it, then it won't have served a purpose at all. As it is now, if it's returned to heaven off-screen and never spoken of again, Rick will have essentially spent an entire arc on King chasing a meaningless item that served no purpose beyond giving King and his plot some screen time; not actually furthering the plot at all.

So, unless Rick just got lazy and didn't plan this part of the story out at all, the watch will be making a reappearance. I'm fairly confident in that (mostly because I'm confident in Rick's storytelling ability).

Ummmm being pointless is the point of a MacGuffin. Its just there to be sought after by the main characters and nothing more its a thing to move the plot along because there would be no plot (in the arc) without it. And It did move Kings Plot forward, it let him know he had to make a choice about being a dog or not and got him thinking about it as Rick showed at the end.

_________________

Last edited by IceKitsune on Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:46 pm

PhoenixAsper

Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:38 amPosts: 579

Re: What would you do if you were in Kings position?

IceKitsune wrote:

KJOokami wrote:

Well, to be honest, if he doesn't do anything with it, then it won't have served a purpose at all. As it is now, if it's returned to heaven off-screen and never spoken of again, Rick will have essentially spent an entire arc on King chasing a meaningless item that served no purpose beyond giving King and his plot some screen time; not actually furthering the plot at all.

So, unless Rick just got lazy and didn't plan this part of the story out at all, the watch will be making a reappearance. I'm fairly confident in that (mostly because I'm confident in Rick's storytelling ability).

Ummmm being pointless is the point of a MacGuffin. Its just there to be sought after by the main characters and nothing more its a thing to move the plot along because there would be no plot (in the arc) without it. And It did move Kings Plot forward, it let him know he had to make a choice about being a dog or not and got him thinking about it as they showed at the end.

I really hope you're wrong. I dislike plots like that if they're just thrown in to a story arc that's been running for as long as this one has.

Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:49 pm

ChewyChewy

Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:23 pmPosts: 5458

Re: What would you do if you were in Kings position?

IceKitsune wrote:

KJOokami wrote:

Well, to be honest, if he doesn't do anything with it, then it won't have served a purpose at all. As it is now, if it's returned to heaven off-screen and never spoken of again, Rick will have essentially spent an entire arc on King chasing a meaningless item that served no purpose beyond giving King and his plot some screen time; not actually furthering the plot at all.

So, unless Rick just got lazy and didn't plan this part of the story out at all, the watch will be making a reappearance. I'm fairly confident in that (mostly because I'm confident in Rick's storytelling ability).

Ummmm being pointless is the point of a MacGuffin. Its just there to be sought after by the main characters and nothing more its a thing to move the plot along because there would be no plot (in the arc) without it. And It did move Kings Plot forward, it let him know he had to make a choice about being a dog or not and got him thinking about it as Rick showed at the end.

That alone hardly merits an entire arc--just to learn that? Rick could just as easily have explained that in a comment or in the comic thread and not had to waste his time drawing the whole arc.

"We have to do this take again! HAL, do it with a LOT less emotion!""I'm sorry Stan, I'm afraid I can't do that."--Phoenix

pair-o-dimes dot blogspot dot com

Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:16 pm

PhoenixAsper

Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:38 amPosts: 579

Re: What would you do if you were in Kings position?

ChewyChewy wrote:

IceKitsune wrote:

KJOokami wrote:

Well, to be honest, if he doesn't do anything with it, then it won't have served a purpose at all. As it is now, if it's returned to heaven off-screen and never spoken of again, Rick will have essentially spent an entire arc on King chasing a meaningless item that served no purpose beyond giving King and his plot some screen time; not actually furthering the plot at all.

So, unless Rick just got lazy and didn't plan this part of the story out at all, the watch will be making a reappearance. I'm fairly confident in that (mostly because I'm confident in Rick's storytelling ability).

Ummmm being pointless is the point of a MacGuffin. Its just there to be sought after by the main characters and nothing more its a thing to move the plot along because there would be no plot (in the arc) without it. And It did move Kings Plot forward, it let him know he had to make a choice about being a dog or not and got him thinking about it as Rick showed at the end.

That alone hardly merits an entire arc--just to learn that? Rick could just as easily have explained that in a comment or in the comic thread and not had to waste his time drawing the whole arc.

Basically what Chewy said. If the only "plot-progression" that happened in a dozen or more comic-long arc was something that could've been explained in a single comic (or half of one, for that matter), it's hardly worth calling it progression at all.

Hence why I say that at this point I trust Rick's ability to tell a good story too much to believe he would actually do that.

You know what I agree that its a bit silly to have an entire arc just to explain something simple like that. However as far as I can tell right now that is what it is and to be quite frank its Ricks comic if that's what he wants to do then he can. However to clear this up so we may move on to what the topic is meant to be about, I will just PM Rick and ask him.

_________________

Tue Jun 07, 2011 10:51 pm

Sleet

Bringing Foxy Back

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:32 amPosts: 15809Location: Nephelokokkygia

Re: What would you do if you were in Kings position?

Really, there's not much of a plot at all if you think about it. Most of these story arcs are self-contained, and while they provide information to the readers, not much is changed in the long run. Personally I have no problem with that!

At the end of the day, this comic exists to entertain us, and it does a good job of that whether or not we learn about the universe in the process.

Really, there's not much of a plot at all if you think about it. Most of these story arcs are self-contained, and while they provide information to the readers, not much is changed in the long run. Personally I have no problem with that!

At the end of the day, this comic exists to entertain us, and it does a good job of that whether or not we learn about the universe in the process.

Not much has changed?!?! Where have YOU been for the last year and a half or so? Rick's cleared up the Peanut and Grape thing rather admirably, and got it to a point where they admit they love each other. I'd call THAT progression.

Really, there's not much of a plot at all if you think about it. Most of these story arcs are self-contained, and while they provide information to the readers, not much is changed in the long run. Personally I have no problem with that!

At the end of the day, this comic exists to entertain us, and it does a good job of that whether or not we learn about the universe in the process.

Not much has changed?!?! Where have YOU been for the last year and a half or so? Rick's cleared up the Peanut and Grape thing rather admirably, and got it to a point where they admit they love each other. I'd call THAT progression.

Yes, but outside of the context of those one or two arcs, their relationship looks pretty similar to the way it always has been, is what I think Sleet's saying. It's not that nothing's happened, it's that what has happened has not had any major consequences or reverberations yet. The most major changes we've seen have mostly involved the introduction of new characters, it seems to me.

It's not that nothing's happened, it's that what has happened has not had any major consequences or reverberations yet. The most major changes we've seen have mostly involved the introduction of new characters, it seems to me.

True enough. However, there's a pretty big difference between making arcs that don't further a particular plot-line and making an arc that looks like it's furthering a plot-line and then just dropping it as if nothing actually happened.

Now, that's a silly assumption that I would have that kind of thought record. Although you are right and I could have worded that bit a little differently. With more 'coming from my perspective' etc then just basing it on a 'this is generally what's percieved' perspective.

My complaint didn't really have anything to do about your perspective on it; your perspective on any given situation is your own business. What I was doing was likening your thought process to a place where it's easier to see why I found it so ridiculous. You were saying (or at the very least, heavily implying) that because one of the character's name is Joel, and this name happens to be in the Bible as well, that it follows for the origin of the name to be in the Bible somewhere. And that's just as silly as claiming a child named George must have been named after George Washington. There are so many other sources the name could have been pulled from (for instance, the friend I had in my sister's class in grade school; also named Joel) that to automatically assume it came from a biblical origin is to dismiss every other possible answer for no good reason at all.

xhunterko wrote:

Sidestepping here. First of all, we don't know much about Joel's early life before he and the pets ran away. Baseless? A bit harsh no?

base·less–adjectivehaving no base; without foundation; groundless: a baseless claim.

A bit harsh-sounding, maybe (and for that, once again, I apologize), but I'd say it's a pretty accurate statement. You said yourself, just now in fact, that we don't know much of anything about his past. So, where then are your grounds, your base, to claim that Joel's name has biblical origins?

You see what I mean? It just doesn't make sense.

Quote:

Maybe. Then, why have a seperate heaven that is more lenient in the first place? *shrugs*

"Because, unlike people, dogs are naturally good and loyal and kind." to quote All Dogs Go to Heaven. ;D

In other words: I don't know! :]

Quote:

Note to self: Keep religion out of forum debates as much as possible in the future.

Unless, of course, it's a debate about religion. In which case, go for it! Lol.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edit: Also, Claire, I think valerio was just saying that you're far from alone in wanting King to remain a dog. In fact, I'd say that's likely what most people want to happen. :p

OK, thanks for the verification!! :3

_________________The clock is running. Make the most of today. Time waits for no man. Yesterday is history. Tomorrow is a mystery. Today is a gift. That's why it is called the present.

Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:40 am

yehoshua

Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 7:32 pmPosts: 1980Location: In a house unless I'm not in a house.

Re: What would you do if you were in Kings position?

ClaireTheHedgehog wrote:

KJOokami wrote:

xhunterko wrote:

Now, that's a silly assumption that I would have that kind of thought record. Although you are right and I could have worded that bit a little differently. With more 'coming from my perspective' etc then just basing it on a 'this is generally what's percieved' perspective.

My complaint didn't really have anything to do about your perspective on it; your perspective on any given situation is your own business. What I was doing was likening your thought process to a place where it's easier to see why I found it so ridiculous. You were saying (or at the very least, heavily implying) that because one of the character's name is Joel, and this name happens to be in the Bible as well, that it follows for the origin of the name to be in the Bible somewhere. And that's just as silly as claiming a child named George must have been named after George Washington. There are so many other sources the name could have been pulled from (for instance, the friend I had in my sister's class in grade school; also named Joel) that to automatically assume it came from a biblical origin is to dismiss every other possible answer for no good reason at all.

xhunterko wrote:

Sidestepping here. First of all, we don't know much about Joel's early life before he and the pets ran away. Baseless? A bit harsh no?

base·less–adjectivehaving no base; without foundation; groundless: a baseless claim.

A bit harsh-sounding, maybe (and for that, once again, I apologize), but I'd say it's a pretty accurate statement. You said yourself, just now in fact, that we don't know much of anything about his past. So, where then are your grounds, your base, to claim that Joel's name has biblical origins?

You see what I mean? It just doesn't make sense.

Quote:

Maybe. Then, why have a seperate heaven that is more lenient in the first place? *shrugs*

"Because, unlike people, dogs are naturally good and loyal and kind." to quote All Dogs Go to Heaven. ;D

In other words: I don't know! :]

Quote:

Note to self: Keep religion out of forum debates as much as possible in the future.

Unless, of course, it's a debate about religion. In which case, go for it! Lol.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edit: Also, Claire, I think valerio was just saying that you're far from alone in wanting King to remain a dog. In fact, I'd say that's likely what most people want to happen. :p

OK, thanks for the verification!! :3

Is it really necesary to make a post so large just because you're quoting?

Claire, if you only want to quote a part of someone's message, you can copy/paste it into a reply box, highlight it and click on the "Quote" button next to the Bold, Italic, and Underline buttons hovering over the reply box.

Or you can do it by yourself by typing:

[ quote="Insert Username Here" ]Then put that user's text here! And close it off with a[ /quote ]

But take out the spaces inside the [brackets]. If you're not sure you did it right, just click on "Preview" instead of "Submit"; it should look like this...

KJOokami wrote:

I wrote this. Now I'm quoting myself so you know that I wrote this. Hoooo snap.

Just to avoid huge walls of unnecessary quoting in the future.

Also:

yehoshua wrote:

Is it really necesary to make a post so large just because you're quoting?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 7 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum